Lawyers spar over whether death row inmate is retarded; case led to Supreme Court decision:
"Atkins was 18 when he and William Jones killed Airman 1st Class Eric Nesbitt, 21, for beer money. Nesbitt was abducted outside a convenience store, forced to withdraw money from an automated teller machine and driven to a desolate road, where he was shot eight times.
Prosecutors said Atkins was the triggerman. A plea agreement was reached with Jones, who testified against Atkins and received a life sentence.
Three years ago, Supreme Court justices sided with Atkins' lawyers in ruling that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel, but did not decide whether Atkins has the disability."
----
Yes, killing someone is stupid. Yes, this guy is very stupid. But basing retardedness on IQ is pretty stupid too. Why not apply insanity to the same test, after all stupid people do things that those of normal or higher intelligence consider insane... like killing someone.
Isn't Hawking retarded? But isn't he also like the smartest person on Earth right now? Oh, 'mentally' retarded... hmm, little bit different. Oh it makes sense now, I see the light. Mentally retarded is the same thing as "stupid." So the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court is that it is cruel to execute someone very stupid. Why? In this case, the guy was smart enough to robbing someone is wrong, smart enough to know that shooting someone would kill them, smart enough to wait until in a desolate place to start shooting the victim.
You know, the only way this guy should be applicable to the law (not be executed) is if he was just doing what his partner was telling him to do. So that if he was an active participant, not just a tool, then he is smart enough to be executed without the execution being cruel.
Forget this bright line IQ test, take the time to look at each case individually and have a jury make the determination whether the guy is in fact an active participant or if he was under a false impression or other manipulation.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system
News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system: "M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system
Updated: 7/19/2005 8:14 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office reversed their previous position Monday on the investigation into the police shooting of Daniel Rocha.
The ME now says Rocha did have drugs in his system when he was killed by an Austin police officer on June 16. Original toxicology reports showed no traces of drugs in his system.
'We feel very bad that this happened, but this is a very special case and it could have happened in any other office,' Travis County Medical Examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo said.
Rocha, 18, was shot in the back and killed after police say he struggled with Officer Julie Schroeder after a traffic stop in Southeast Austin.
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office said APD detectives 'strongly believed' Rocha had smoked marijuana before the incident, and pushed for a different, more specific test.
The medical examiner reported Daniel Rocha had marijuana in his system, which contradicts a previous report.
Austin Police Chief Stan Knee said his department 'is disturbed by the inconsistent findings.'
'Immediately upon being notified of the results, I contacted the District Attorney's office and urged them to seize the blood and urine evidence and send it to a third party laboratory for analysis,' Knee said.
'We are very disturbed, too. Exceptionally disturbed, and we are very glad that we are going to submit the specimens to another laboratory to confirm our findings,' Bayardo said.
The shooting death upset many in his neighborhood. One week after the event, police and city leaders hosted a community forum. For many, it was a night to vent frustrated emotions. The forum is available on News 8 on Demand, channel 1458 on Time Warner Cable.
The Hispanic Advocates and Business Leadership of Austin hosted another panel Monday to try and rebuild that trust.
Police chief Stan Knee and Austin City Manager Tobey Futrell attended the meeting and talked with neighbors.
City leaders say the timing of the forum with the announcement of Rocha's new toxicology report was just a coincidence.
6/23/05 Rocha investigation turned over to DA
6/17/05 APD, city to address community concerns raised in forum
6/17/05 APD answers questions in Rocha's death
6/16/05 FBI will investigate Rocha shooting
6/14/05 Knee speaks out on officer-related shooting
6/13/05 Protestors angry over police shooting of drug suspect
6/12/05 Community groups call for investigation into Rocha shooting
6/10/05 Officer shoots suspect dead"
------------
Rocha... probably wasn't the nicest guy in town... probably smoked pot. Fine, does that deserve the death penalty? Hell no.
Here's a fact not mentioned in the article nor by the police... Rocha had TRACE amounts of pot in his system. Someone who had recently smoked pot would have about 10 times the amount he had. Maybe if he had been high when he got pulled over, he would be alive today because pot makes one mellow, not violent.
Here's probably the short version of what happened. Rocha, who's had many prior dealings with the police and this particular officer for a while, gets pulled over. The cop suspects that there is probably something else going on, like someone having some weed on them, so she fabricates this "suspicion of marijuana" to validate a search of the vehicle. Rocha correctly sees this as a fishing expedition/harassment, and knows only rich people can really fight the system. So he tries to run away.
Policewoman isn't strong enough to keep Rocha at the scene, and as she is being overpowered, and not wanting to have to chase after Rocha, she shoots him in the back. Maybe she didn't mean to kill him... but she did.
But in order for all this to be on the up and up, this suspected marijuana use which gave rise to the search and altercation, must be supported. Unfortunately for Austin PD and Policewoman/murderer, TRACE amounts of pot means he had smoked some earlier but wasn't under the effects, and would not be noticeable to the keenest of eyes, police or otherwise.
Policewoman needs to be charged for the murder, and waving a report that basically proves Rocha wasn't drug-free, is only fodder for the naive or police-biassed.
Sure, I believe the chief should stand behind his officers and have faith in their abilities... but he shouldn't do so when the evidence clearly indicates the officer is not only in the wrong, but criminally negligent at the least. Policewoman needs to be brought to justice and held accountable, just like everyone else.
Updated: 7/19/2005 8:14 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office reversed their previous position Monday on the investigation into the police shooting of Daniel Rocha.
The ME now says Rocha did have drugs in his system when he was killed by an Austin police officer on June 16. Original toxicology reports showed no traces of drugs in his system.
'We feel very bad that this happened, but this is a very special case and it could have happened in any other office,' Travis County Medical Examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo said.
Rocha, 18, was shot in the back and killed after police say he struggled with Officer Julie Schroeder after a traffic stop in Southeast Austin.
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office said APD detectives 'strongly believed' Rocha had smoked marijuana before the incident, and pushed for a different, more specific test.
The medical examiner reported Daniel Rocha had marijuana in his system, which contradicts a previous report.
Austin Police Chief Stan Knee said his department 'is disturbed by the inconsistent findings.'
'Immediately upon being notified of the results, I contacted the District Attorney's office and urged them to seize the blood and urine evidence and send it to a third party laboratory for analysis,' Knee said.
'We are very disturbed, too. Exceptionally disturbed, and we are very glad that we are going to submit the specimens to another laboratory to confirm our findings,' Bayardo said.
The shooting death upset many in his neighborhood. One week after the event, police and city leaders hosted a community forum. For many, it was a night to vent frustrated emotions. The forum is available on News 8 on Demand, channel 1458 on Time Warner Cable.
The Hispanic Advocates and Business Leadership of Austin hosted another panel Monday to try and rebuild that trust.
Police chief Stan Knee and Austin City Manager Tobey Futrell attended the meeting and talked with neighbors.
City leaders say the timing of the forum with the announcement of Rocha's new toxicology report was just a coincidence.
6/23/05 Rocha investigation turned over to DA
6/17/05 APD, city to address community concerns raised in forum
6/17/05 APD answers questions in Rocha's death
6/16/05 FBI will investigate Rocha shooting
6/14/05 Knee speaks out on officer-related shooting
6/13/05 Protestors angry over police shooting of drug suspect
6/12/05 Community groups call for investigation into Rocha shooting
6/10/05 Officer shoots suspect dead"
------------
Rocha... probably wasn't the nicest guy in town... probably smoked pot. Fine, does that deserve the death penalty? Hell no.
Here's a fact not mentioned in the article nor by the police... Rocha had TRACE amounts of pot in his system. Someone who had recently smoked pot would have about 10 times the amount he had. Maybe if he had been high when he got pulled over, he would be alive today because pot makes one mellow, not violent.
Here's probably the short version of what happened. Rocha, who's had many prior dealings with the police and this particular officer for a while, gets pulled over. The cop suspects that there is probably something else going on, like someone having some weed on them, so she fabricates this "suspicion of marijuana" to validate a search of the vehicle. Rocha correctly sees this as a fishing expedition/harassment, and knows only rich people can really fight the system. So he tries to run away.
Policewoman isn't strong enough to keep Rocha at the scene, and as she is being overpowered, and not wanting to have to chase after Rocha, she shoots him in the back. Maybe she didn't mean to kill him... but she did.
But in order for all this to be on the up and up, this suspected marijuana use which gave rise to the search and altercation, must be supported. Unfortunately for Austin PD and Policewoman/murderer, TRACE amounts of pot means he had smoked some earlier but wasn't under the effects, and would not be noticeable to the keenest of eyes, police or otherwise.
Policewoman needs to be charged for the murder, and waving a report that basically proves Rocha wasn't drug-free, is only fodder for the naive or police-biassed.
Sure, I believe the chief should stand behind his officers and have faith in their abilities... but he shouldn't do so when the evidence clearly indicates the officer is not only in the wrong, but criminally negligent at the least. Policewoman needs to be brought to justice and held accountable, just like everyone else.
Friday, July 15, 2005
'Not In the Name of Islam'
'Not In the Name of Islam' - Yahoo! News: "'Not In the Name of Islam'
By Ibrahim Hooper Fri Jul 15, 7:38 AM ET
The question I am asked most often in media interviews and on radio call-in programs is: 'Why don't Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?'
As a person who writes frequent statements condemning terrorism in all its forms, it is frustrating to hear that question come up in interview after interview.
After all, it was a broad coalition of American Muslim groups that issued what was perhaps the first condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. My own organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), published a full-page advertisement condemning those attacks and offering condolences to the victims.
Muslim organizations and leaders in this country and around the world have consistently condemned violence against civilians, whether it is suicide bombs in the Middle East, attacks on Christian churches in Pakistan or the bombing of London's transportation system. Those condemning terrorism ranged from the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt to ayatollahs in
Iran.
Following the latest terrorist outrage in Britain on Thursday, CAIR echoed a call by British Muslim groups urging all Islamic prayer leaders, or imams, to condemn terrorism in their Friday sermons.
Ordinary Muslims contacted British diplomatic offices to offer condolences. A delegation of Muslim leaders also met with the British ambassador to show solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.
In 2004, CAIR launched a petition drive, called 'Not in the Name of Islam,' designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. The petition, signed by some 700,000 Muslims, states in part: 'We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad.'
This week, we turned that petition into a television public service announcement that is being distributed nationwide. Arabic and Urdu subtitled versions will also be made available to television stations in Muslim countries. (To read the petition or to view the PSA, go to www.cair.com)
Mutual misunderstanding is the fuel that propels the twin phenomena of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. Muslims have a religious duty to speak out against terrorism. People of other faiths have a similar duty to hear mainstream Muslim voices and to help avoid a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility. The best way to break that cycle of mistrust is to know each other as individuals. Prejudice decreases as one-on-one interaction between ordinary people of different faiths increases.
Are Muslims doing all they can to condemn terrorism and repudiate those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam? We ask ourselves that question every day. And every day, we try to give our fellow Americans a reason to answer in the affirmative.
Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations; CAIR is the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group."
------
What's that? Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Maybe I did and forgot? Maybe... maybe I'm thinking of an interview with an "ordinary muslim" on some street who said muslims felt good about 9/11 because of their resentment towards the U.S. Maybe I'm not seeing muslims actively trying to disuade the terrorists. Maybe I'm seeing muslim regimes support and/or turn a blind eye to terrorists. To make a statement that these muslim terrorists/extremists are a "tiny minority" is bold, because the 700k muslims that object to it is a tiny minority of muslims itself.
Let's get real... most muslims hate the U.S., as hypocritical as it is since many live here and enjoy the freedoms and/or technology produced here, they continue to hate the U.S. for whatever reason. From this nonsensical animosity, most allow extremism/terrorism to happen or take no stance against it.
Thus, I label this article as being... deceitful bullshit. Or, if the author really believes what he's saying, just bullshit.
By Ibrahim Hooper Fri Jul 15, 7:38 AM ET
The question I am asked most often in media interviews and on radio call-in programs is: 'Why don't Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?'
As a person who writes frequent statements condemning terrorism in all its forms, it is frustrating to hear that question come up in interview after interview.
After all, it was a broad coalition of American Muslim groups that issued what was perhaps the first condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. My own organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), published a full-page advertisement condemning those attacks and offering condolences to the victims.
Muslim organizations and leaders in this country and around the world have consistently condemned violence against civilians, whether it is suicide bombs in the Middle East, attacks on Christian churches in Pakistan or the bombing of London's transportation system. Those condemning terrorism ranged from the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt to ayatollahs in
Iran.
Following the latest terrorist outrage in Britain on Thursday, CAIR echoed a call by British Muslim groups urging all Islamic prayer leaders, or imams, to condemn terrorism in their Friday sermons.
Ordinary Muslims contacted British diplomatic offices to offer condolences. A delegation of Muslim leaders also met with the British ambassador to show solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.
In 2004, CAIR launched a petition drive, called 'Not in the Name of Islam,' designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. The petition, signed by some 700,000 Muslims, states in part: 'We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad.'
This week, we turned that petition into a television public service announcement that is being distributed nationwide. Arabic and Urdu subtitled versions will also be made available to television stations in Muslim countries. (To read the petition or to view the PSA, go to www.cair.com)
Mutual misunderstanding is the fuel that propels the twin phenomena of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. Muslims have a religious duty to speak out against terrorism. People of other faiths have a similar duty to hear mainstream Muslim voices and to help avoid a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility. The best way to break that cycle of mistrust is to know each other as individuals. Prejudice decreases as one-on-one interaction between ordinary people of different faiths increases.
Are Muslims doing all they can to condemn terrorism and repudiate those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam? We ask ourselves that question every day. And every day, we try to give our fellow Americans a reason to answer in the affirmative.
Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations; CAIR is the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group."
------
What's that? Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Maybe I did and forgot? Maybe... maybe I'm thinking of an interview with an "ordinary muslim" on some street who said muslims felt good about 9/11 because of their resentment towards the U.S. Maybe I'm not seeing muslims actively trying to disuade the terrorists. Maybe I'm seeing muslim regimes support and/or turn a blind eye to terrorists. To make a statement that these muslim terrorists/extremists are a "tiny minority" is bold, because the 700k muslims that object to it is a tiny minority of muslims itself.
Let's get real... most muslims hate the U.S., as hypocritical as it is since many live here and enjoy the freedoms and/or technology produced here, they continue to hate the U.S. for whatever reason. From this nonsensical animosity, most allow extremism/terrorism to happen or take no stance against it.
Thus, I label this article as being... deceitful bullshit. Or, if the author really believes what he's saying, just bullshit.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Teen Allegedly Confesses to Creating Worm
Teen Allegedly Confesses to Creating Worm - Yahoo! News:
"VERDEN, Germany - A German teenager reiterated his confession to creating last year's 'Sasser' computer worm as he went on trial Tuesday on computer sabotage and related charges, a court official said."
Seems like most of the crackers that make headlines are from either Europe or Asia. Are American crackers too good to get caught, or are they lagging behind?
Of course, right beside this article was this one...
"More Computer Classes Urged for Kids
"
"By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Mon Jul 4, 1:47 PM ET
"LOS ANGELES - Even in a nation where most every school has Internet access and computer use often starts by nursery school, teachers of technology see a warning message flashing.
"For students in elementary and secondary schools, states have few developed standards or required courses in computer science — a field that goes beyond basic literacy to encompass hardware and software design, real-world applications and computers' effect on society."
So there ya go.
"VERDEN, Germany - A German teenager reiterated his confession to creating last year's 'Sasser' computer worm as he went on trial Tuesday on computer sabotage and related charges, a court official said."
Seems like most of the crackers that make headlines are from either Europe or Asia. Are American crackers too good to get caught, or are they lagging behind?
Of course, right beside this article was this one...
"More Computer Classes Urged for Kids
"
"By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Mon Jul 4, 1:47 PM ET
"LOS ANGELES - Even in a nation where most every school has Internet access and computer use often starts by nursery school, teachers of technology see a warning message flashing.
"For students in elementary and secondary schools, states have few developed standards or required courses in computer science — a field that goes beyond basic literacy to encompass hardware and software design, real-world applications and computers' effect on society."
So there ya go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
